Free Speech/Free Thought Discussion

"davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com" (davesaddiction) 02/21/2020 at 10:15 • Filed to: None

0

42

Racism and racist propaganda are abhorrent, and a scourge on our societies. As “enlightened” as our modern world has become in certain respects, it will continue to be a problem we deal with far into the future. Every effort should be made to condemn racism and prevent its seed from being sown. But how far can and should governments go to control speech (and even thought)?

Murder, theft, ar son are all crimes, but you can’t punish someone for merely thinking about committing any of these acts. We can punish a person for what they do, and in some cases for what they say (if inciting violence here in the States), but this Swiss ruling seems right on the line of attempting to punish someone for what they think (hate speech is illegal in Switzerland).

It’s easy to say “all racists should be put away”, but if the way a person thinks can be criminalized, then any thought could be made a crime. If an oppressive government came into power, it could be made a crime to “like” a post that mentions revolution, or outlines the corruptness of the people in power. See: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

What are your thoughts on this? As citizens are more and more being surveilled online and in public, where do we (or should we) draw the line between free speech & thought and criminal activity?

Related: Should hate speech be made illegal in the U.S.?

Media lawyer Martin Steiger !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in 2017 that the intent element of the case was the crucial factor.

“It always depends on what a ‘like’ means and what someone was aiming to achieve with it,” Steiger told the paper. “A ‘like’ doesn’t always mean that someone likes the content of a post. If, for instance, there’s an accident, then it also means expressing sympathy. Or that you find it good that someone shares something on Facebook.”

Steiger added that because the defendant had clearly indicated his intent was to spread the content, the ruling was “not necessarily unjustified.”

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:20

1

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. That is where I would draw the line. If the speech is intentionally harmful to another person it should not be allowed .

Spanfeller is a twat > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:25

1

I didn't know politics could be such a Theme Day thing

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 02/21/2020 at 10:27

1

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech that does not fall into one of these categories is constitutionally protected.

Proponents of hate speech legislation in the United States have argued that freedom of speech undermines the 14th Amendment by bolstering an oppressive narrative which demeans equality and the Reconstructive Amendment’s purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

———

Seems like it may take a constitutional amendment to change it, at this point...

dumpsterfire! > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:28

0

free speech isn’t wit hout limitations ie yelling fire in a crowded theater. but that example has the potential to cause physical harm. does causing mental harm fall into that same category? since “pain and suffering” became a basis for payouts in legal cases, it surely has a “value”, but that’s more civil law than criminal law. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Spanfeller is a twat 02/21/2020 at 10:30

0

Theme day?

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:31

2

I’ll wade in. I think we have the right balance on free speech. While I do think clicking “like” or endorsing an online post is an extension of your speech, we shouldn’t have rules to limit that.

I think it is up to society to police itself, not the government. If I want to shout at the top of a mountain that the little green men should go back to their little green planet, other people should be the voice of reason, not the government.

In theory, what constitutes hate speech would be dictated by the group in charge and not necessarily reflect what the broader population thinks.

I once did a report on hate crimes and they never made any sense to me. Hate crimes don’t outlaw any new activities, they just add punishments. If I kill you because you slept with my dog why is the punishment different if I kill you because you are purple ?

Nibby > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:34

0

is it still hate speech if you hate racists?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > dumpsterfire! 02/21/2020 at 10:35

0

A “like” on a social media platform is basically no different than nodding in agreement to what someone is saying in a public space . I may hate what the person is saying (and it may even be criminal in some places ), but can something so subtle — like I said, basically a small physical manifestation of a thought — actually be a crime?

I completely agree that hitting “share” is a different story altogether.

OPPOsaurus WRX > Future next gen S2000 owner 02/21/2020 at 10:36

0

I think it is up to society to police itself, not the government

but what happens when that society like to eat tide pods?  Maybe society isn’t always the one to rely on?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Nibby 02/21/2020 at 10:37

0

If racism is a religion, yes?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:38

1

Good morning Dave. I see this, but I’m not going to weigh in. I’m sure you and I would see it eye to eye, and I’d have a conversation with you offline anytime about this or other topics, but not here.

Ash78, voting early and often > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:40

4

Hate speech in general should remain protected here. At least for now, the value of the first amendment outweighs its questionable use by the lunatic fringe. Will that ever change? I don’t think so, but I can see it being clamped down harder if some of these acts of violence continue. This will probably occur on things like vague threats, which historically might have been written off as ramblings. But I think clicking “like” on Facebook is ridiculously overstepping because it’s such a passive, even accidental, action.

Germany ( and presumably Switzerland) have hate speech laws almost entirely because of the Nazi precedent, something that we thankfully don’t have. Even the recent resurgence of activity, or Trump’s inflammatory or racist-friendly rhetoric, is FAR short of fully institutionalized genocide. In many ways, the first amendment needs to be strong just to keep that contained through the freedom of media criticism.

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:40

5

Our tradition in the US holds free speech as sacrosanct and I think it has to stay that way, no matter how vile the offending speech may be.  There is always the temptation to suppress that which we see as evil.  However, if speech is really evil, it is better brought out into the open where its flaws can be discussed and exposed in the light of day, not whispered in the shadows where it can grow like a cancer.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future next gen S2000 owner 02/21/2020 at 10:40

2

I think a different penalty for vandalism vs. racist vandalism is completely valid.

Vandalism is annoying. Racist vandalism will most likely be viewed as a threat of violence by the victim.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 02/21/2020 at 10:42

2

Good morning, Rusty. I fully respect your freedom of no speech at this time, in this place . =)

Nibby > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:42

0

does anything really exist or does existence exist only in our minds?

Future next gen S2000 owner > OPPOsaurus WRX 02/21/2020 at 10:43

3

There have always been dumb people. The internet would be cleaned up a lot if we removed the anonymity of usernames. If one person got one  ID and was linked across everything.  People are generally a lot more civil when they know they could potentially get their ass kicked. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Nibby 02/21/2020 at 10:44

0

Chariotoflove > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 02/21/2020 at 10:44

3

Then you get into the bog of what is hate speech.  Specifically, what is intent, and what is harmful. There can be huge subjective components to those concepts, depending on your definition. So now you have to adjudicate those, which means setting objective standards. It’s a huge mess. 

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:48

3

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Ash78, voting early and often 02/21/2020 at 10:49

0

Freedom of speech and press are critical to a free society, for sure.

I wish that the U.S. would follow Germany’s lead when it comes to protecting personal privacy...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/09/europe/germany-privacy-fears-ger-intl/index.html

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Chariotoflove 02/21/2020 at 10:51

1

Unfortunately, it continues to grow in the dark corners, too.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:56

0

While I think this is a very discussion worthy topic, I fear that Oppo isn’t *quite* the place for it. Kinja is part of it, but it covers a lot of ground and topics and isn’t as easily consumed and digested as something more focused. I tried to leave a “small” example of what I meant and realized after typing over a paragraph that it wasn’t happening. 

Mid Engine > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 10:58

1

The President of the United States spews hate all day long, so should he be stripp ed of his title and thrown in jail? Please say yes

nermal > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:05

5

I assume you’re referring to the US and not other countries. The Bill of Rights was written in the order of importance - That’s why free speech was the first item addressed.

“ Hate” speech is protected , although it is generally not socially acceptable. Propaganda from either side is protected as well, up to the extremes . Targeted t hreats of violence are not.

Limiting free speech is one of the things that the British did in the 1700s to control the people . This is important to the current day US, because the US still operates on the principles rooted in creating a country that would never end up like the British of the 1700s. When in doubt, err on the side of freedom, not on the side of oppression.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/21/2020 at 11:07

3

Completely understandable. I value these kinds of discussions here on OPPO because almost everyone here is able to have reasonable, balanced discussions and express their opinions without putting down their fellow Opponauts. No way I would ever consider bringing this up on Facebook - it would just eventually devolve into political name-calling...

I’ll admit that I took a little risk to post this, as it could be viewed that I was defending this racist who hit the “like” button, but I have confidence in the community here to read and consider what I’m saying/asking before jumping to any conclusions.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Mid Engine 02/21/2020 at 11:10

0

It could be argued that he did incite violence in some of his campaign speeches...

https://time.com/5645371/trump-rhetoric-violence/

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:10

1

Shouldn’t the racist vandalism then be treated as a threat and not racist vandalism?

To me it seems to single out intent on behalf of the perpetrator. To me punishing the action  versus intent is how justice should be carried out.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > nermal 02/21/2020 at 11:11

2

“ Err on the side of freedom” - I completely agree.

My bird IS the word > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:16

1

People use “hate speech” in the concept of _ isms and irrational biases. However, you cant make it illegal to hate someone, as that would have to include rational hate . We would all be guilty.

Spanfeller is a twat > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:24

0

I saw some references to politics here and tuere on oppo... More than before

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:25

1

It does. That will never change. But like a wound, cutting it open and draining it often helps it to heal. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future next gen S2000 owner 02/21/2020 at 11:27

0

An attempted murder is treated much differently than involuntary manslaughter.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Spanfeller is a twat 02/21/2020 at 11:29

1

I have a fair share of political discussions here on OPPO, because the people here are mostly thoughtful and respectful in conversation.

OPPOsaurus WRX > Future next gen S2000 owner 02/21/2020 at 11:33

0

you are severely underestimating the stupidity of stupid people

warning, this video my have ‘violence’

Spanfeller is a twat > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:38

2

I’d know, it's just that lately we've had very little political discussions here, and I started noticing more...

BigBlock440 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:47

1

I’d argue that hitting “share” is no different, they both require the exact same amount of effort and are right next to each other, they also accomplish essentially the same thing by bringing that post into a larger audience. A click on “share” could also be a “hey, look at these assholes”, I’ve seen a number of posts where it was used in that manner. Similar to your post here, only yours was absolutely deliberate and not a fat-finger slip, it wasn’t a “yay, I agree with this”, it was a “look at this ridiculousness ”.

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 11:53

0

True. Also premeditated vs 1st degree murder.

Future next gen S2000 owner > OPPOsaurus WRX 02/21/2020 at 11:57

1

I’ve learned when you build something idiot proof, the worlds builds a better idiot.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > BigBlock440 02/21/2020 at 11:57

0

Same effort, likely different intent. A share (without implicit wording refuting it) seems obviously spreading hate speech (or whatever it is), a like is agreeing. Very g ood point about the ability to share something to disagree with it - that brings in a whole new level to the discussion. Now, I agree with you that a “like” combined with a bunch of other likes, might get the post out to a greater audience, and in some social networks, others can see your likes, but then it does come down to intent, and that can be quite a challenge to infer.

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/21/2020 at 12:10

1

Hate speech is fundamentally a moral issue that hinges on the subjective sensibilities of someone’s paradigm. Any hate speech law would have to play off of the shared moral code of a society (Judeo- Christian based, in our case, which poses a whole new set of problems to the secular humanist) . However, hate speech is usually tailored to insult/degrade a specific (usually) minority group.

It is a specific action towards a group or individual to threat/intimidate. However, not all insults are hate speech. The judgement of speech as having a slandering and oppressive effect is subjective enough that almost any law to address it could easily be abused for political reasons.

An d certaintl y criminalizing reposting or even liking a derogatory message is not indicative of a wider conspiracy against someone.

A fun aside: Someone once casually mentioned to me “at least I’m not an anore xic stick like you” out of the blue. I laughed while warning him that not all people are as amicable as myself.

duurtlang > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 02/22/2020 at 05:23

0

There are two things here that we should separate :

1. Is ‘liking’ or ‘sharing’ illegal speech illegal as well?

And

2. Should hate speech be illegal?

Many people replying here are American. In the US you also don’t have unlimited free speech. The examples are well known. Yelling fire in a cinema and inciting physical violence are both restricted .

So let us ignore point 2 entirely , and focus on point 1. Let’s say someone incites violence in a way that is undoubtedly illegal. If you then ‘like’ or ‘share’ this undoubtedly illegal speech without providing disapproving context, is your act illegal as well? One could argue you are promoting this speech actively.